John, something about red shift and steady state universe just does not work for me. How does it work for you?

betreger,
Glad you asked that question.

And i will be very honest here, i don't have the precise answer, yet! The whole big bang theory rests on the red shift theory. If red shift is proven wrong, then the big bang never happened. So truth be known, the whole big bang theory is resting on very thin ice.

Here is a fact to show you just how thin the red shift theory is;
There isn't a single scientific experiment you can carry out in a lab that conclusively proves that the wavelength of light changes, or red shifts, because the object emitting the light is moving. In other words, the only place we see red shifted light is from deep astronomy images. Its never been proven in a scientific laboratory test.

So taking that into account, there are multiple other explanation's for why the wavelength of light might change, or appear to change! One possibility is that it doesn't change at all and its an optical illusion that astronomers see because, in theory, they are looking "out" of the bubble of energy the earth is sitting in. A bit like a fish in a bowl in your kitchen. The fish looks out of his spherical glass bowl and observes the world. Then the fish measures the world outside. But the fish's measurements are bent because the glass bowl acts as a magnifying glass. The fish never notices that he is looking out through the glass bowl, so he makes mistakes in his measurements and never notices.

Its one possibility. Maybe we are in a type of glass bowl looking out and not noticing it, just like the fish.

Here is a fact to show you just how thin the red shift theory is;
There isn't a single scientific experiment you can carry out in a lab that conclusively proves that the wavelength of light changes, or red shifts, because the object emitting the light is moving. In other words, the only place we see red shifted light is from deep astronomy images. Its never been proven in a scientific laboratory test.

The Big Bang theory does not rest on redshift but on the cosmic microwave background, detected in 1964 by Penzias and Wilson, and successively analyzed by the COBE satellite. It is an observable effect, foreseen by George Gamow. "Theory determines what can be observed", said Albert Einstein.
Tullio
Incidentally, the Hubble Space Telescope has just imaged a galaxy born 600 million years after the Big Bang by the Gravitational Lensing effect due to General Relativity. This is the most distant galaxy ever seen.

The doppler effect is real. A moving source that is going away from an observer will show a shift to lower frequencies (red end of the spectrum so to speak). I would expect that the Galaxies are expanding and generally rushing away from each other. They should be slowing now in their expansion due to the effect of what we call gravity.

Instead they appear to be accelerating which would suggest a force or energy that is somehow emanating from free space. This is what defies our current understanding and prompts one to think about the possibility of another explanation or that the original premise of acceleration is false. For my money a better premise would be that there is another much more massive , encompassing universe just beyond our vision that is attracting our universe due to gravity.

The cosmic background map has been used as a dis-prover of the "tired light theory". For me I would want to linger a little longer on trying to see what else would cause a frequency shift in light before admitting to dark energy.

The doppler effect is real. A moving source that is going away from an observer will show a shift to lower frequencies (red end of the spectrum so to speak). I would expect that the Galaxies are expanding and generally rushing away from each other. They should be slowing now in their expansion due to the effect of what we call gravity.

Instead they appear to be accelerating which would suggest a force or energy that is somehow emanating from free space. This is what defies our current understanding and prompts one to think about the possibility of another explanation or that the original premise of acceleration is false. For my money a better premise would be that there is another much more massive , encompassing universe just beyond our vision that is attracting our universe due to gravity.

I tend to agree with the possibility of a larger universe. A larger source of gravity would explain the expansion acceleration. I saw a program that indicated that many galaxies are moving toward one direction, not necessarily away from a center, but longitudinally. That too may be gravity induced.

If the Big Bang was ever supposed to have happened, where is its starting place or location in space?

Can we assume or derive that space expanded or inflated from a singular point in a currently defined three-dimensional space (or four-dimensional, for that matter) and that such a creation point could possibly be traced back to the starting point when it comes to its position?

Being an observer on the ground, I only have the option of looking at the sky either with the naked eye, or possibly using binoculars. In fact, when returning to bed last night, I was surprised at the appearance of Venus in the eastern sky. It definitely was not Jupiter already at first glance.

The sky initially was quite cloudy, so identifying the stars that were visible was at first a little difficult. A little later on, Castor and Pollux in Gemini as well as Aldebaran in Taurus became visible. Also Jupiter was visible very high up so it was not that planet.

But as far as I am able to see things, the position of objects against their general background position have changed somewhat in recent years. Definitely presession is noticeable when having 20-25 year experience at watching the skies.

Ya know. It seems to me that we may have it backwards. It is said that the farthest away galaxies are receding the fastest. Well the farthest away galaxies are showing us what happened 13 billion years ago or thereabouts. That long ago, things were traveling faster than now due to the energy of the big bang and gravity did not have enough time to slow them down.

Ya know. It seems to me that we may have it backwards. It is said that the farthest away galaxies are receding the fastest. Well the farthest away galaxies are showing us what happened 13 billion years ago or thereabouts. That long ago, things were traveling faster than now due to the energy of the big bang and gravity did not have enough time to slow them down.

What's wrong with my thinking ??

It would be extremely interesting to see what the universe is doing in real time, but no matter where you are in the universe, your point of reference changes, and as what is moving where, and how fast.

If the Big Bang was ever supposed to have happened, where is its starting place or location in space?

Can we assume or derive that space expanded or inflated from a singular point in a currently defined three-dimensional space (or four-dimensional, for that matter) and that such a creation point could possibly be traced back to the starting point when it comes to its position?

Being an observer on the ground, I only have the option of looking at the sky either with the naked eye, or possibly using binoculars. In fact, when returning to bed last night, I was surprised at the appearance of Venus in the eastern sky. It definitely was not Jupiter already at first glance.

The sky initially was quite cloudy, so identifying the stars that were visible was at first a little difficult. A little later on, Castor and Pollux in Gemini as well as Aldebaran in Taurus became visible. Also Jupiter was visible very high up so it was not that planet.

But as far as I am able to see things, the position of objects against their general background position have changed somewhat in recent years. Definitely presession is noticeable when having 20-25 year experience at watching the skies.

The way I understand it the starting point for the big bang is everywhere since it started with a singularity. I understand it is hard to wrap your mind around that concept since I too have a hard time getting a mental image.Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

Bob and MusicPlayer,
Both of you raised an important issue. You both said you have difficulty understanding the concept of universal expansion in the milli seconds after the big bang.

Some people try explain this with the expanding balloon theory;

Astronomers will try to explain this by saying the expansion happened everywhere all at the one time. And they will tell you its kinda like an expanding balloon, like in the picture above.

But its nonsense!! Its a mathematical paradox, and thats why nobody understands it. Nobody understands it because it never happened!! But academics who study astronomy and cosmology always think they are much more clever than everybody else, and they are the only ones that understand it. But truth is, they DON'T understand it themselves. They can't, because it didn't happen. Its a mathematical paradox that simply could NOT have happened! And thats why nobody understand it. And thats why nobody can explain it properly!

You mark my words right here and now! There never was a big bang! Its a mathematical error and the astronomers and cosmologists are protecting the theory because they want to be crowned "king of science" and get a Nobel prize when they solve the problem. As a result of the astronomers and cosmologists blocking outside opinion, they are blocking anyone from solving the problem. They are cutting their own throats and digging themselves deeper and deeper into more and more unsolvable paradoxes! The longer it goes on, the worse its getting!

Right now today, instead of astronomy making science simple for people to understand, they burying astronomy in a minefield of unsolvable paradoxes.

There are no black holes, there is no dark energy, no dark matter, no dark flow, no singularities, no big bang or any of the other mathematical paradoxes that the astronomers claim. I tell you the truth, everybody will find this out very soon! I hold the key to solving the mathematical paradoxes. There is an error in the maths! Thats why the vast majority of astronomical theory has "dark" prefixed before it! All of these things are theoretical constructs as a result of mathematical error. Funny, but all these "dark" things in astronomy, you can't take a picture of any of them!!! You can't detect them, they can't be measured, they don't emit any light at any wavelength of the electromagnetic spectrum. Why?? Because they are theoretical constructs based on mathematical error! They don't exist!

Johnny your explanation flies in the face of every observation made since Edwin Hubble pointed his new telescope into the night sky. I don't necessarily believe current astrophysicists have gotten everything figured out but I think they are basically on the right track. The fact that I don't understand something doesn't make it wrong.Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

Johnny your explanation flies in the face of every observation made since Edwin Hubble pointed his new telescope into the night sky. I don't necessarily believe current astrophysicists have gotten everything figured out but I think they are basically on the right track. The fact that I don't understand something doesn't make it wrong.

Bob,
Yes, my explanation DOES fly in the face of mainstream astronomy. But mainstream astronomy is in crisis. And the whole of theoretical astronomy and cosmology is about to get a rude awakening.